kaiten_detach_card_sla

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the SLA policy itself is deleted, whether measurements are recalculated, or reversibility). This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with zero redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Detach an SLA policy') and specifies the target ('from a card'), making it easy to scan and understand instantly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (two simple parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally acceptable but lacks important behavioral context. It does not clarify what 'detach' entails (e.g., whether it deletes the SLA policy, affects SLA measurements, or requires specific permissions), which could be important for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (SLA ID as UUID, Card ID as integer), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Detach') with a clear resource ('an SLA policy') and target ('from a card'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like attach_card_sla and get_card_sla_measurements, making the action and scope immediately obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states exactly what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any context on preconditions. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better suited, so the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.